Worksection MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable context by specifying the return format ('List of comments with author, text, date, and optionally file attachments'), which is not captured in annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, and the subsequent lines clarify parameters and output. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity, rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an output schema but describes the return format. Minor gaps include no pagination details or error handling, but overall it's sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description repeats the parameter information without adding meaning beyond the schema, such as example values or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get all comments') and resource ('for a specific Worksection task'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like worksection_get_task or worksection_post_comment. It precisely defines the scope of retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when comments for a task are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like worksection_get_task (which might include comments) or worksection_search_tasks. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.